JAWAD HASSAN, J.---- Through this judgment, we intend to decide the instant Intra Court Appeal filed against impugned order dated 18.06.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.11472 of 2006 by the learned Single Judge whereby it was dismissed being not maintainable.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the grounds that the same is illegal and has been passed against the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and facts on record; that when the disciplinary action against the Appellant was taken in the year 2002 under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (the "Ordinance ") the Respondent No.1-Habib Bank Limited (HBL) was a Nationalized Bank, as such petition under Article 199(1) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution ") was fully competent; that the judgment cited in the impugned order has been misinterpreted by the learned single Judge, as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the Respondents controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellant and prayed for dismissal of Appeal on the ground that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order by following the dictum laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan; that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order; that the instant Appeal is not competent before this Division Bench as the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 prohibits an Intra Court Appeal where the law applicable provides for at least one Appeal or one Revision or one Review to any Court Tribunal or Authority against the original order; that the said provision of the law fully attracts to the case in hand as Section 9 of the Ordinance provides remedy of Representation to the Appellant which he duly availed, as such the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
4. Basically , the Appellant is aggrieved of by the order dated 11.06.2002, which is an original order, passed by the Respondents whereby he was dismissed from service with immediate effect. The perusal of said order reveals that the same has been passed under the Ordinance. Section 9 of the Ordinance provides the remedy of Representation and Review to the Appellant against his dismissal from service orders. For the sake of brevity said Section is reproduced herein below which is as follows:
9. Representation and review .---(I) A person who has been dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired from service or reduced to lower post or pay scale or against whom any order has been made under Section 3 by the competent authority may, within fifteen days from the date of the communication of the order prefer a representation to the Chief Executive or such office or authority as the Chief Executive may designate: Provided that where the order has been made by the Chief Executive such person may, within the aforesaid period, submit a review petition to the Chief Executive.
(2) The Chief Executive, or an officer or authority , as may be designated for the purpose by the Chief Executive, may, on consideration of the representat ion, review petition and any other relevant material, confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order in respect of which such representation or review petition is made."
5. From the above Section, it is crystal clear that against the decision of the Respondent No.4 a remedy of Representation is provided, as such the order dated 11.06.2002 was challengeable acid the Appellant has duly challenged the same through Representa0on/Review Petition under Section 9 of the Ordinance, attached with the petition as Annexure-W at Page-56, before the competent Authority i.e. The President, HBL which was also rejected vide order dated 22.07.2002.
6. The instant Intra Court Appeal has been filed under Section 3 of the Law Reform s Ordinance, 1972 whereas the object of proviso to subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 bars the remedy of Intra Court Appeal in those cases in which the relevant law provides the remedy of appeal, revision or review . It is important to note that on order dated 11.06.2002, it is clearly mentioned that the same has been issued under the Ordinance and under Section 9 of the Ordinance the Appellant has moved Representation/R eview Petition against the said order before the Authority for the redressal of his grievance which met with the same fate.
7. Now the question arises whether Intra Court appeal is maintainable in such a case where a remedy in the form of representation was available to the Appellant. Proviso to Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinan ce, 1972 provides that where appeal, revision or review is provided, then intra court appeal is not maintainable. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case titled "SME Bank Limited v.
Izharul Haq" (2019 SCMR 939 ) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "We are of the view that where the proceedings from which the writ petition has arisen provided for either review , revision or Appeal, in terms of proviso to Section 3 of the Ordinance of 1972, remedy of ICA will not be available against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition".
Reliance is further placed on case law reported as "Muhammad Aslam Sukhera and others v. Collector Land Acquisition, Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore and another" (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 45) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under: "7. There is no doubt in our mind that the award by the Tribunal is treated to be an original judgment and decree within the meaning of section 26 of the Act. Being an original decree, the award has been specifically made appealable before the High Court and then before this Court under section 54 of the Act of 1894. In view of express provisions of section 54 of the Act it is not possible for us to hold otherwise. It cann ot be said that the award by the Tribunal is not an original order for the purposes of bar contained in proviso of section 3(2) of the Ordinance.
Therefore, it is not necessary for us to determine as to whether the award made by the Collector could also be treated to be an original order or not. The object of Proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Ordinance, 1972 seems to be to bar the remedy of Intra Court Appeal in those cases in which the relevant law provides the remedies of appeal, revision or review ."
8. As against the original order i.e. dated 11.06.2002 through which the Appellant was dismissed from service by the Respondents, a remedy of Representation has been provided under Section 9 of the Ordinance and the Appellant has duly availed the said remedy by filing the Representation/Review Petition before the Authority which was dismissed vide order dated 22.07.2002. It was held by august Supreme Court in "Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad and others v. Messrs Sahib Jee and others" (2017 PTD 1481 ) that "remedy of representation, though not stricto sensu akin to an appeal, is nevertheless a statutory remedy and, therefore, the provision must be strictly construed and applied". This Court through various judgments has already held that remedy of representation is equal to remedy of appeal as envisaged under Proviso of Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 thus debar remedy of Intra Court Appeal. Reference is placed on "Muhammad Shakoor v. Federal Public Service Commission through Chairman, Islamabad and 2 others " (2003 PLC (C.S.) 414), "Yamin v. Mst. Jajan and others" (2005 CLC 978), "Messrs Shahzadi Polypropylene Industries through Proprietor v. Federation of Pakistan through President and 4 others " (2017 PTD 2019 ), "Muhammad Ashraf Saeed v. Habib Bank Limited and another" (2018 PLC (C.S.) Note 13) and "Haji Ahmad Khan and another v. Province of The Punjab and 5 others" (2018 PLC (C. S.) 36). Therefore, the instant appeal is not maintainable as the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 specifically bars the remedy of Intra Court Appeal in those cases in which the relevant law provides the remedy of appeal, revision or review .
9. In view of above situation, the instant appeal is not maintainable; consequently the same is hereby dismissed.